`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.,
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`IBFX, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,676,411
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSNIESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Grounds For Standing ...................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners’ certification ........................................................................ 3
`
`The ’411 patent is a Covered Business Method patent ......................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’411 patent claims a covered business method .................... 3
`
`The ’411 patent is not for a “technological invention” ............... 4
`
`AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review .................. 9
`
`III.
`
`Identification of the Challenge ...................................................................... 10
`
`A. Grounds of Unpatentability and Prior Art ........................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Each Ground is independently relevant and should be instituted ....... 11
`
`IV. The ’411 PATENT ........................................................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) .................................... 13
`
`Claim construction .............................................................................. 13
`
`V. Ground 1 – Claims 1-28 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................ 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Current state of § 101 jurisprudence ................................................... 14
`
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of placing an order
`based on observed (plotted) market information, as well as
`updating market information (Alice Step 1) ........................................ 16
`
`Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite only insignificant
`post-solution activity and data gathering (Alice Step 2) ..................... 18
`
`The claims are not rooted in computer technology ............................. 22
`
`TT v. CQG is not controlling precedent .............................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`VI. Ground 2 – Silverman, Gutterman, Belden & Togher render claims 1-10
`& 12-28 obvious. ........................................................................................... 25
`
`A. Overview of Silverman ....................................................................... 25
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Gutterman ....................................................................... 27
`
`Overview of Belden............................................................................. 28
`
`D. Overview of Togher ............................................................................ 30
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Rationale to combine Silverman, Gutterman, Belden & Togher ........ 30
`
`Prosecution history relative to Silverman & Gutterman ..................... 32
`
`Independent claims 1 and 26 are obvious over Silverman,
`Gutterman, Belden, & Togher ............................................................. 33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Silverman teaches the preambles of claims 1 & 26 .................. 34
`
`Silverman teaches the “receiving” step .................................... 35
`
`The combination of Silverman & Gutterman renders
`obvious “displaying . . . a bid[/ask] display region” ................ 36
`
`The combination of Silverman & Gutterman renders
`obvious “dynamically displaying . . . a first[/second]
`indicator” .................................................................................. 40
`
`The combination of Silverman & Gutterman renders
`obvious “moving the first[/second] indicator” ......................... 41
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman & Belden
`renders obvious “displaying . . . an order entry region” .......... 43
`
`The combination of Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher renders obvious the “selecting” step ............................ 47
`
`H.
`
`Claim 2 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Claim 3 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 51
`
`Claim 4-5 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 51
`
`Claim 6 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 52
`
`Claims 7-8 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 53
`
`M. Claim 9 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 53
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`U.
`
`Claim 10 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 55
`
`Claims 12 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 55
`
`Claim 13 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 55
`
`Claim 14 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 56
`
`Claim 15 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 56
`
`Claim 16 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 56
`
`Claim 17 is obvious over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden &
`Togher.................................................................................................. 57
`
`Claims 18-25, 27 & 28 are obvious over Silverman, Gutterman,
`Belden & Togher ................................................................................. 57
`
`VII. Ground 3 – Silverman, Gutterman, Belden, Togher, and Paal render
`claim 11 obvious. ........................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`VIII. Ground 4 – TSE, Belden, & Togher render claims 1-28 obvious ................. 60
`
`A. Overview of TSE ................................................................................. 60
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Rationale to combine TSE, Belden & Togher .................................... 62
`
`Independent claims 1 & 26 are obvious over TSE, Belden, and
`Togher.................................................................................................. 64
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`TSE teaches the preambles of claims 1 & 26 ........................... 64
`
`TSE teaches the “receiving” step .............................................. 65
`
`TSE teaches “displaying . . . a bid[/ask] display region”......... 66
`
`TSE teaches “dynamically displaying . . . a first[/second]
`indicator” ................................................................................... 67
`
`TSE teaches “moving the first[/second] indicator” .................. 68
`
`The combination of TSE & Belden teaches “displaying . .
`. an order entry region” ............................................................ 69
`
`The combination of TSE, Belden & Togher teaches the
`“selecting” limitation ................................................................ 71
`
`Claim 2 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher ................................ 73
`
`Claims 3 and 6 are obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher ................... 74
`
`Claim 4 and 5 are obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher .................... 74
`
`Claims 7 and 8 are obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher ................... 75
`
`Claim 9 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher ................................ 75
`
`Claim 10 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher .............................. 76
`
`Claim 11 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher .............................. 77
`
`K.
`
`Claim 12 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher .............................. 77
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`L.
`
`Claims 13 and 14 obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher ..................... 78
`
`M. Claim 15 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher .............................. 78
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Claim 16 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher .............................. 78
`
`Claim 17 is obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher .............................. 79
`
`Claims 18-25, 27 & 28 are obvious over TSE, Belden & Togher ...... 80
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE.............................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 15
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 21, 24
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 8, 24
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ................................................................................... 17
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 17
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................... 7, 17, 19
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005)......................................................................................... 9
`
`In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 17
`
`In re Swanson,
`540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 33
`
`Int’l Sec. Exch. v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch.,
`CBM2013-00049 (P.T.A.B. 2015) ................................................................ 18
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`No. 14-1048 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 18, 21
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Causality Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (P.T.A.B. 2012) ......................................................... 11, 12
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ...................................................................... 15, 21, 22
`
`Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs.,
`132 S.Ct. 740 (2012) ........................................................................................ 9
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 14
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG,
`No. 05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. 2015) .................................................................... 24
`
`Ultramercial v. Hulu,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................... 16, 19, 25
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 4
`
`Xianli Zhang v. United States,
`640 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 33
`
`AIA § 18(d)(2) ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.510 ..................................................................................................... 33
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360.............................................................................................. 10
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5428 (Sept. 8,2011) ........................................................................ 9
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................................ 5
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Exhibit List
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 to Kemp, II et al. (“’411 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/585,907, which became the
`’411 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’411 Patent File His-
`tory”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`WO 90/11571 to Belden et al. (“Belden”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Kawashima Depo. Tr.”)
`Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(d) for Ser. No.
`09/590,692, filed August 21, 2000 (“Petition to Make Special”)
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, Control
`No. 90/011,250, filed September 22, 2010 (“Reexam Request”)
`Order Denying Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,772,132, Control No. 90/011,250, mailed December 14, 2010
`(“Order Denying Reexam”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface De-
`sign,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Ef-
`fective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998 (“Shnei-
`derman”)
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Exh. No.
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Description
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, page 150
`(“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho (“Rho CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho (“Rho List of Materi-
`als”)
`Weiss, “After the Trade is Made,” pp. 44-46. (“Weiss”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 to Hartman et al. (“Hartman”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 18 (“POPR”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 19 (“Ins. Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 29 (“Reh’g Dec.”)
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00133, Paper 32 (“POR”)
`Redacted Second Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas,
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., Case No.
`1:05-CV-04811 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2013) (“Thomas Report”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher Thomas, Trading Technolo-
`gies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. et al., No. 04-cv-5312
`(“eSpeed Tr.”)
`
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`Exh. No.
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Description
`Trading Techs. Int’l. v. CQG, No. 05-cv-4811, slip op. at 10 (N.D.
`Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)
`Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc., 1985
`(“Inside Macintosh”)
`Valerie Illingworth, and I. C. Pyle, Dictionary of Computing, 4th
`Ed, Oxford University Press, 1996 (“Oxford Dictionary”)
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`Petitioners, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc.,
`
`TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., and IBFX, Inc., pe-
`
`tition for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Review of claims 1-28 of U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 7,676,411 (Ex. 1001, “’411 patent”), owned by Trading Technologies In-
`
`ternational, Inc. (“TT” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition demonstrates that claims
`
`1-28 of the ’411 patent are more likely than not unpatentable.
`
`First, claims 1-28 are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101 because
`
`each merely recites the abstract idea of placing an order based on observed (plot-
`
`ted) market information and updating market information. The claims represent
`
`nothing more than the well understood, routine, and conventional activities of re-
`
`ceiving data, displaying it on a computer, accepting an order and sending it to an
`
`exchange. Indeed, the PTAB previously instituted CBM review of the ’411 patent
`
`based on this abstract idea. (Ins. Dec. at 14 (Ex. 1029).) That CBM was terminated
`
`after joint motion by the parties prior to final written decision.
`
`Second, claims 1-28 are also obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’411 pa-
`
`tent admits that its claimed graphical user interface (“GUI”) software can be im-
`
`plemented on any existing computer that can perform the claimed functions, which
`
`include plotting bids and asks along a price axis and providing “single action” en-
`
`try of trade orders having a “default quantity.” And, these claimed functions were
`
`well known before the earliest possible priority date of the ’411 patent. Prior art,
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`such as Gutterman and TSE, describe interfaces that displayed market information
`
`as claimed in the ’411 patent. TT conceded in CBM2014-00133 that single-action
`
`order entry using a default quantity was prior art. (POPR at 8 (Ex. 1028).) The
`
`Belden references confirms TT’s concession - single-action order entry was
`
`known. And, Togher confirms that trading using a default quantity was known.
`
`Thus, this Petition and its supporting evidence demonstrate that the claims of the
`
`’411 patent merely utilize well-known and simple graphical user interface design
`
`techniques in a financial trading product. Petitioners therefore request that the
`
`Board institute trial on all Grounds.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`Real parties-in-interest: IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group,
`
`Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., IBFX, Inc.
`
`Related Matters: The ’411 patent is currently involved in the following proceed-
`
`ing that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: TT v. BGC
`
`Partners, Inc., et al., 10-cv-715 (N.D. Ill.) (1:10-cv-931, 1:10-cv-929, 1:10-cv-885,
`
`1:10-cv-883, 1:10-cv-884, 1:10-cv-882, 1: 10-cv-726, 1:10-cv-721, 1:10-cv-716,
`
`1:10-cv-718, and 1:10-cv-720 consolidated therein).
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel: Petitioners appoint Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No.
`
`36,013) as its lead counsel, and Lori Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) and Richard M.
`
`Bemben (Reg. No. 68,658) as its back-up counsel, all at: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLD-
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`STEIN & FOX, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone
`
`number (202)772-8997, facsimile (202)371-2540. Petitioners consent to service by
`
`email at: rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com, lgordon-ptab@skgf.com, rbemben-
`
`PTAB@skgf.com, and PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II. Grounds For Standing
`
`A. Petitioners’ certification
`
`Petitioners certify that they meet the eligibility requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.302 because they were sued for infringement of the ’411 patent: TT v. IBG
`
`LLC, 10-cv-721 (N.D. Ill.), TT v. Tradestation Securities, Inc., 10-cv-884 (N.D.
`
`Ill.). Petitioners certify that they are not estopped or barred from filing this Peti-
`
`tion—they have not been a party or a privy to a party in any post-grant proceeding
`
`of the ’411 patent, nor filed a civil action challenging any of its claims.
`
`B. The ’411 patent is a Covered Business Method patent
`
`The ’411 patent is a CBM patent because it claims a method for trading a fi-
`
`nancial instrument and is not for a technological invention. In CBM2014-00133,
`
`the Board analyzed the ’411 patent and found it eligible for CBM review. And con-
`
`trary to TT’s previous arguments, GUIs are not exempt from CBM review.
`
`1. The ’411 patent claims a covered business method
`
`A patent that claims a method for performing data processing in the practice,
`
`administration or management of a financial product or service is a CBM patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). In promulgating the final rules for CBM Review, the Office
`
`explained that “financial product or service” should be “interpreted broadly,” en-
`
`compassing patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a
`
`financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Transitional Program
`
`for CBM Patents—Definitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48735 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`Federal Circuit upheld the Office’s interpretation in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v.
`
`SAP Am., Inc., No. 2014-1194, slip op. at 35-36 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015).
`
`The ’411 patent meets this definition. Claim 1, e.g., recites “[a] method of
`
`displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity
`
`being traded on an electronic exchange” (’411 patent, 12:23-25), and “recites steps
`
`of displaying market information, including indicators of asks and bids in the mar-
`
`ket, and recites steps of setting trade order parameters and sending a trade order to
`
`an electronic exchange,” (Ins. Dec. at 9). “Displaying market information and
`
`sending a trade order to an electronic exchange are activities that are financial in
`
`nature.” (Id.) And while a patent needs only one claim directed to a CBM to be eli-
`
`gible for CBM review, all the claims qualify. (See, e.g., ’411 patent, claims 7-8
`
`(trading strategies), 10 (canceling), 26.)
`
`2. The ’411 patent is not for a “technological invention”
`
`The ’411 patent fails both prongs of the technological invention test of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The claims as a whole do not recite a technical feature that is
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`novel and unobvious over the prior art, nor do they solve a technical problem using
`
`a technical solution. Instead, they attempt to solve a business problem by applying
`
`known GUI and display techniques to existing computer systems.
`
`a) The ’411 patent does not recite a technological feature that is
`novel and unobvious
`
`The claims of the ’411 patent do not recite a technical feature that is novel or
`
`unobvious over the prior art. In general, the claims recite trading software that is
`
`implemented on a conventional computer. Indeed, the ’411 patent admits “that the
`
`system of the present invention can be implemented on any existing . . . terminal or
`
`device with the processing capability to perform the functions described herein.”
`
`(’411 patent, 4:8-11.) Those functions are well-understood, routine, and conven-
`
`tional steps of displaying market information graphically to a trader, who enters
`
`buy and sell orders, and sends the trader’s orders to the exchange to be executed.
`
`See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012) (neither the mere recitation of
`
`known technologies (computer hardware, software, memory, computer-readable
`
`storage medium, display devices) nor reciting the use of known prior art technolo-
`
`gy to accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
`
`non-obvious establish a technological invention).
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites, “A method of displaying market infor-
`
`mation relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded on an elec-
`
`tronic exchange.” The ’411 patent admits that at the time of the putative invention
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`there were “[a]t least 60 exchanges throughout the world utilize electronic trading
`
`in varying degrees to trade” commodities (’411 patent, 1:31-33), and that trading
`
`GUIs were known: “[exchange participants’ computers] use software that creates
`
`specialized interactive trading screens on the traders’ desktops. The trading screens
`
`enable traders to enter and execute orders, obtain market quotes, and monitor posi-
`
`tions” (id. at 1:63-2:1).
`
`Claim 1 also recites a step for receiving market data (bids and asks) from the
`
`exchange (id. at 12:26-29), several displaying and updating steps that plot the bids
`
`and asks along a price axis (id. at 12:30-13:6), and a step for displaying an order
`
`entry region (id. at 13:6-11.) But the ’411 patent admits that “everyone logged on
`
`to trade can receive [the bids and asks in the market]” (id. at 2:20-22), and prior art
`
`such as TSE and Gutterman demonstrate that displaying bids, asks, and an order
`
`entry region along a price axis was well known, (TSE at 0107 (Ex. 1007); Gutter-
`
`man, FIG. 2b (Ex. 1004).) TT even admitted that “single action” order entry using
`
`a default quantity was known:
`
`Figure 2 [of the ’411 patent] provides an example of one particular
`design of such a prior art style screen. . . . Some of these types of tools
`permitted “single action” order entry that consisted of a trader preset-
`ting a default quantity and then clicking on a cell in the screen (i.e.,
`pressing a button on the tool) to cause a trade order message to be sent
`to the exchange at the preset quantity and at the price value associated
`with that cell.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`(POPR at 8.) TT’s expert, Christopher Thomas, verified these statements. (Thomas
`
`Rep. ¶ 20 (Ex. 1032).) Belden and Hartman also demonstrate the conventionality
`
`of single-action order entry. (Belden at 0012, 0033 (Ex. 1009); Hartman, 3:31-4:3
`
`(“single-action ordering . . . reduces the number of purchaser interactions needed to
`
`place an order”) (Ex. 1027).) Togher illustrates that trading using a default quantity
`
`was known. (Togher, 8:65-9:10, 12:7-18 (Ex. 1005).)
`
`Claim 1 illustrates that TT’s claims recite a few well-worn, routine, and
`
`conventional GUI features, each of which had already been implemented in other
`
`trading systems. (See POPR at 16 (TT admitting that “the ’411 patent . . . com-
`
`bined various features that were kept separate in the prior art”).) And each of these
`
`conventional features could have been implemented on a generic computer using
`
`generic GUI tools and programming languages. (Román Decl., ¶ 73 (Ex. 1019);
`
`Ins. Dec. at 11-12; ’411 patent, 4:8-11.) At best, TT rearranged prior art GUIs
`
`(such as FIG. 2 of the ’411 patent) to display bids and asks along a price axis. But
`
`the prior art shows that this display configuration was well-known. (See, e.g., TSE
`
`at 0107; Gutterman at FIG. 2b.) Simply rearranging the display of data is not even
`
`enough to confer patent eligibility, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, 654
`
`F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011), let alone to qualify as a technological invention.
`
`b) The ’411 patent does not solve a technical problem using a
`technical solution
`
`As the PTAB found in CBM2014-00133, the claims do not solve a technical
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`problem using a technical solution. (Ins. Dec. at 11-12.) According to the ’411 pa-
`
`tent, the “problem” with prior art trading GUIs was that the market price could
`
`change before a trader entered a desired order, causing the trader to “miss his
`
`price.” (’411 patent, 2:59-67.) In CBM2014-00133, TT repeatedly stated that the
`
`’411 patent sought to overcome this problem, and that the ’411 patent made trading
`
`faster and helped traders visualize information. (POPR at 9-10; POR at 6-7 (Ex.
`
`1031); see also Thomas Tr. at 63 (traders would track inside market “in their
`
`head”) (Ex. 1033); Thomas Rep. ¶ 32 (“significantly reduces the mental calcula-
`
`tions required by the preexisting systems”).) But, as the PTAB correctly found
`
`(twice), missing a trade price is not a technical problem. (Ins. Dec. at 11-12; Reh’g
`
`Dec. at 7-8 (Ex. 1030); see also Román Decl., ¶ 71.) And “accelerat[ing] an ineli-
`
`gible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs.,
`
`LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Moreover, the ’411 patent’s solution is not technical. According to TT, trad-
`
`ers sacrificed accuracy for speed using conventional trading GUIs. (POPR at 9;
`
`POR at 6.) But TT did not design a more accurate mouse or a computer that re-
`
`sponded faster. Rather, TT’s non-technical solution was to rearrange how known
`
`and available market data is displayed on a GUI—albeit into a known display con-
`
`figuration. TT’s solution may be aesthetic, but it is certainly not technical. (See
`
`Román Decl., ¶ 71.) Thus, the claims also fail the second prong of the technologi-
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411
`
`
`
`cal invention test, and the ’411 patent is eligible for CBM review.
`
`3. AIA § 18 does not exempt GUIs from CBM review
`
`TT previously argued for the creation of a GUI exception to the statute based
`
`on Senator Durbin’s statement regarding “novel software tools and graphical user
`
`interfaces.” (POR at 51-52 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5428 (Sept. 8,2011).) But the
`
`legislative history is irrelevant here because the statute unambiguously lacks any
`
`such GUI exception. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546,
`
`568 (2005) (“As we have repeatedly held, the authoritative statement is the statuto-
`
`ry text, not the legislative history or any other extrinsic material.”); Xianli Zhang v.
`
`United States, 640 F.3d 1358, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (may refer to legislative histo-
`
`ry only if text of statute is ambiguous). As a result, TT’s cherry-picked quote from
`
`the legislative history does not alter the statute’s meaning. Mims v. Arrow Fin.
`
`Servs., 132 S.Ct. 740, 752 (2012) (“[T]he views of a single legislator, even a bill’s
`
`sponsor, are not controlling.”). The Senator was merely expressing his opinion
`
`over the statute’s reach and his hope that the Office would “keep [it] in mind”
`
`when it crafts the technological invention exception. (157 Cong. Rec. S5433.) This
`
`is not sufficient to cast doubt on a properly promulgated regulation.
`
`But should the PTAB turn to the legislative history, claim 1 is squarely with-
`
`in Senator Schumer’s definition of a CBM because he expressly listed methods for
`
`“selling and trading financial instruments and other securities” such as those
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`